Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

The probability that life was brought into existence purely by random or determinate events is very low.
The probability that such events could create self awareness and free will is absolute zero.

Ah, and how exactly do you go about calculating such probabilities ?

Additionally, if the probability that self-awareness emerging slowly is absolutely zero, how do you calculate the negative probability of a self-awareness spontaneously emerging to be available to create the rest?

O.

[Maeght]

The probability that life was brought into existence purely by random or determinate events is very low.
The probability that such events could create self awareness and free will is absolute zero.

Why do you think that?

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to think that it neutralises awareness, somehow.

I am picking this bit because I am struggling to understand how you get this out of what I have written. Yes, there is awareness but that is simply part of the processing. Other than as part of that processing it makes no difference to the outcome. That is, it is integral to what the outcome will be,but only in the same way as any part of the process.

Perhaps this links to the issue I have with the cogito as it is normally exprssedc, and which would be better expressed as 'there is thinking'. There is awareness.

[Outrider]

I am picking this bit because I am struggling to understand how you get this out of what I have written. Yes, there is awareness but that is simply part of the processing. Other than as part of that processing it makes no difference to the outcome. That is, it is integral to what the outcome will be,but only in the same way as any part of the process.

Perhaps this links to the issue I have with the cogito as it is normally exprssedc, and which would be better expressed as 'there is thinking'. There is awareness.

I guess it's the idea of whether something is 'pointless' because it's inevitable? I don't know, it's a difficult area to conceptualise given that we develop our sense of self-awareness with the understanding that we're free agencies: to try to develop language outside of that is troubling. Maybe there isn't really the difference we're feeling, I don't know.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That's why i'm trying to split how we talk about it between a specific discussion of there not being free will, and where we talk about normal activity when we assume free will.


I think the ideas of using lack of free will to justify a change is just a blurring of those two different types of discussion.

[Leonard James]

All vertebrates make choices and they make them using their brain. Claiming those choices are 'free' does not really add anything to understanding; a brain makes decisions, there is nothing for it to be free of.

But you claim the choice is not free, and that it is determined by previous events. If that is the case it is not really a choice.

That is what I don't agree with.

[ekim]

But you claim the choice is not free, and that it is determined by previous events. If that is the case it is not really a choice.

That is what I don't agree with.

... and following O's argument, the brain can't make decisions, it can only blindly follow its programme.  It also appears to rule out intelligence which based upon conscious choice.

[Maeght]

... and following O's argument, the brain can't make decisions, it can only blindly follow its programme.  It also appears to rule out intelligence which based upon conscious choice.

I think there seems to be a tendency to present the 'no free will' alternative as a very basic, even robotic, system. I don't think that is the case firstly because the brain is very complex and secondly because the programming of the brain can and does change as synapses develop and strengthen through use or wither and die through lack of use. I think the point being made is that the brain can make decisions but that the vast majority, many more than people imagine, are based on sub conscious instinctive reactions which we later justify with a rational explanation, and that even if there are some decisions not made in this way that they are still dependent on how the brain is programmed due to nature and nurture.

[ekim]

I think there seems to be a tendency to present the 'no free will' alternative as a very basic, even robotic, system. I don't think that is the case firstly because the brain is very complex and secondly because the programming of the brain can and does change as synapses develop and strengthen through use or wither and die through lack of use. I think the point being made is that the brain can make decisions but that the vast majority, many more than people imagine, are based on sub conscious instinctive reactions which we later justify with a rational explanation, and that even if there are some decisions not made in this way that they are still dependent on how the brain is programmed due to nature and nurture.

I can go along with most of what you say but would say we can freely observe behaviour resulting from subconscious 'programmes' and can freely choose to evolve whatever desires fuel them into new possibilities and change the 'programmes' or add to them. Viruses without brains seem to be able to mutate and defeat antibiotics.  Perhaps we, with conscious intelligence, can metamorphose into something better than slavery to subconscious predispositions.  Although, looking at the way the human world is behaving it seems to support the 'robotic' argument.

[Outrider]

... and following O's argument, the brain can't make decisions, it can only blindly follow its programme.

Running that programme makes the decisions.

It also appears to rule out intelligence which based upon conscious choice.

That's not an understanding of the word intelligence that I recognise - Intelligence is the capacity to process information and recall specific pieces of data.

People are more intelligent if their brain's programme is more effective or accurate.

O.

[Maeght]

I can go along with most of what you say but would say we can freely observe behaviour resulting from subconscious 'programmes' and can freely choose to evolve whatever desires fuel them into new possibilities and change the 'programmes' or add to them.

I don't think there is any evidence that we can consciously choose to change our subconscious programming but I think it can be changed buy exposure to new information, study and the like.

Viruses without brains seem to be able to mutate and defeat antibiotics.

Something quite different going on there though.

Perhaps we, with conscious intelligence, can metamorphose into something better than slavery to subconscious predispositions.

By exposure to new information, study etc yes - although many of the instincive responses are well ingrained I think.

Although, looking at the way the human world is behaving it seems to support the 'robotic' argument.

I think again that is labelling one set of responses as robotic and another as not which I think is a bit of an over simplification.

[torridon]

... and following O's argument, the brain can't make decisions, it can only blindly follow its programme.  It also appears to rule out intelligence which based upon conscious choice.

That doesn't really make much sense.  Brains make decisions, that's what they do, they allow for a far more sophisticated response to change than a simple nervous system. The notion of it being 'free' just doesn't make much sense. A brain is in effect an organic computer that optimises responses and there would be no point in having a computer that was 'free' of its programming. Having said that we have to be careful with brain/computer analogies; whereas the computer on your desk executes a fixed program, your brain is far more softwired, and is updating its 'program' continually.

[ekim]

Running that programme makes the decisions.

That's not an understanding of the word intelligence that I recognise - Intelligence is the capacity to process information and recall specific pieces of data.

People are more intelligent if their brain's programme is more effective or accurate.

O.

I was using the word from its original sense 'inter legere' ..... choose between.  Although processing information can have an element of choice involved but I personally wouldn't call a data processor or word processor particularly intelligent nor would I call Wikipaedia's ability to recall data intelligent.  To me they are more like mechanical devices which are only as good as the accuracy of the data inputers allow.

To me people are more intelligent if they can consciously transcend their brain's programmes so that they can choose or not choose without being attached to them or driven by them.  This would include emotional intelligence as well as rational intelligence.

[ekim]

I don't think there is any evidence that we can consciously choose to change our subconscious programming but I think it can be changed buy exposure to new information, study and the like.

- although many of the instincive responses are well ingrained I think.

Well, you, yourself, said words to the effect that if you don't use it, you lose it.  It is not beyond the realms of possibility that by choosing not to exercise a programme, it will lose its potency.  Also you could create a new programme to run alongside others, say learning to walk on a tightrope across Niagara Falls where you may learn to modify the programme of fear of heights and falling.  I'm in favour of people providing their own first hand experiential evidence rather than assessing second and third hand evidence.

[ekim]

That doesn't really make much sense.  Brains make decisions, that's what they do, they allow for a far more sophisticated response to change than a simple nervous system. The notion of it being 'free' just doesn't make much sense. A brain is in effect an organic computer that optimises responses and there would be no point in having a computer that was 'free' of its programming. Having said that we have to be careful with brain/computer analogies; whereas the computer on your desk executes a fixed program, your brain is far more softwired, and is updating its 'program' continually.

Yes, your last sentence has almost answered your previous comment.  It makes more sense to me that there is a conscious intelligence free of the brain's programming than, say, being subjected to the indoctrination of a suicide bomber.

[torridon]

Yes, your last sentence has almost answered your previous comment.  It makes more sense to me that there is a conscious intelligence free of the brain's programming than, say, being subjected to the indoctrination of a suicide bomber.

You can't have a conscious intelligence that is free of the brain's programming though; 'conscious intelligence' would be an aspect of brain function.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note that for the idea of free will to make sense, then it cannot be built on a traditional materialist methodology because  it negate how we view cause and effect. That doesn't mean it does not apply but that anyone touting it would have to accept that we would have an infinite number of uncaused causes so the idea of needing one to start it no longer makes sense. To be fair to Alan Burns, he sort of does accept the impact of this.


Over land above that what makes the very concept difficult is the point that Outrider has been making but I don't see much recognition of, in that if there is no action is not caused, what does that really mean? How do we will something without it being fully caused. If we have a set of choices and there is no or even partial cause, then what would make any decision more likely with it being free? It's not random in this definition so how could it be made. Removing cause and effect causes real problems for how this might happen

[Maeght]

Well, you, yourself, said words to the effect that if you don't use it, you lose it.

Yes, synapses can 'die' if not used.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that by choosing not to exercise a programme, it will lose its potency.  Also you could create a new programme to run alongside others, say learning to walk on a tightrope across Niagara Falls where you may learn to modify the programme of fear of heights and falling.

Yes, new experiences, new data etc changes the way the brain is wired.

I'm in favour of people providing their own first hand experiential evidence rather than assessing second and third hand evidence.

Expect of course that we can easily misinterpret our own experiences.

[Alan Burns]

And you still - still - haven't explained how free will can be a thing.

It is not possible to explain how it works, but virtually every human being knows they have the ability to do what they want to do when they so wish.

[Maeght]

It is not possible to explain how it works, but virtually every human being knows they have the ability to do what they want to do when they so wish.

The phrase 'when they so wish' doesn't indicate free will as you have to identify the origin of the wish as being free and not determined by previous events.

[Alan Burns]

Ah, and how exactly do you go about calculating such probabilities ?

As far as I know, Hoyle is the only person who has attempted to calculate the realistic probability of life being brought into existence by random forces.  It is not feasible to calculate the probability of random forces creating self awareness because we can't define how self awareness is generated from material properties.

[Alan Burns]

The phrase 'when they so wish' doesn't indicate free will as you have to identify the origin of the wish as being free and not determined by previous events.

It means the origin of the wish is generated from self awareness rather than being pre determined from past events.

[Maeght]

And yet you said 'The probability that such events could create self awareness and free will is absolute zero.' - which was torridon's point.

[Maeght]

It means the origin of the wish is generated from self awareness rather than being pre determined from past events.

That's what you meant but you cannot prove that.

[Leonard James]

Saying that free will doesn't exist because science has found no way to explain it yet, is just as bad as saying "God" exists because science can't explain certain other phenomena.